Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Canaen in topic Request for consensus: Should we include the Gaelic and Scots names in Infobox for every Scottish place?
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Requested Move - Tain

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I requested Tain, Scotland be moved to Tain, moving Tain to Tain (disambiguation). See Talk:Tain, Scotland - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that there are tens, if not hundreds, of Scottish examples like this of frankly stupid disambigs. I could happily spend a week working on them, but life is just too short. But maybe if we compile a list, here, we could work on them collectively? Eg, a prime example is Paisley (it cannot be moved back to where it should be without an Admin's intervention, which may well require a week-long vote). --Mais oui! 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know there were examples like that. We should prolly wait to see the outcome of the Tain move. If it's moved, then we can site it as an example which might be needed owing to the drasticness of mass moving. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for consensus: Should we include the Gaelic and Scots names in Infobox for every Scottish place?

Latest comment: 18 years ago76 comments21 people in discussion
This discussion was started following a debate at Talk:Rutherglen.

I would like to request that we reach a consensus on whether or not we use of the Gaelic and Scots names for places in all Scottish place Infoboxes; or whether we need to create separate Infoboxes for different regions. The current Infoboxes are:

Possible regional Infoboxes may be (please do not create these unless consensus is reached here):

Proposal: The proposal is that we retain the current, uniform Infoboxes for the whole of Scotland. --Mais oui! 14:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
What constitutes a traditional area? Its range has shrunken greatly in the recent past, not to mention last few centuries. --MacRusgail 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither - Makes perfect sense to have it in the article for all Scottish places (where relevent), makes no sense to have it in the infobox *except* in the areas where it is spoken. (so I suppose I argue that the infoboxes don't have to change, but the field is not used where it isn't a gaelic speaking place) See comment below for my full views. SFC9394 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Mais oui! has it spot on. An Siarach
  • Support where possible, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland, where the Gaidhlig names probably shouldn't be used. --MacRusgail 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support - For now I tepidly accept that all names should be included in the infobox. My preferred solution is to remove the name field from the infobox template, so avoiding the what about Norn ? and is this a traditional Gaelic-speaking area ? questions. On any level it makes little sense to have the name in itty-bit type in the infobox when it appears in BIG FRIENDLY letters at the top of the page and in bold ones in the first sentence. I'm a definite no when it comes to multiple templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm in agreement with SFC9394 here. By all means include it in the article where relevant, but bloating the infobox with it seems to be pushing an agenda that all places have or should have three names, and those that don't are inferior. Owain (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I live in the Borders, and most people there are offended by any suggestion that gaelic has been spoken. User:retro_junkies (Talk) 15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I probably contributed to this change, so I'm supporting it still. --Bob 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Separate template for Northern isles perhaps. And different template for places whose official name in English is the Gaelic name (but wiki doesn't seem to be adopting that). But different templates for "Lowlands" (all the area not in the Gaidhealtachd? All the area not in Highland Council? All the area not in beyond the 18th century "Highland Line"? Is Galloway lowland, or highland? etc) is not appropriate in the 21st century. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I also find the possibility of a Northern Isles template interesting, with the inclusion of the Norn placename? --Mais oui! 14:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how easily these things are available. Would that be three placenames then, or would Gaelic go? How often are the Lowland Scots names different from English? Would they go to? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Scots and the English names are identical in nearly every case, indeed that is pretty much the point: the modern English language simply uses the placenames of the pre-existing Scots language. Are there many Gaelic names for places in the Northern Isles, or just for big, important places like Kirkwall? --Mais oui! 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, just the larger ones, or those in Orkney nearest the early modern Gaelic coast of Caithness. Theoretically, the Scottish parliament should be able to talk about every place in Scotland in Gaelic. Maybe An Siarach might know better. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think having multiple infobox templates is confusing, and causes problems / inconsistency if one is updated and others aren't. IMO, it would be better to have one infobox, with optional parameters for a number of languages. Then different articles can have a different selection of languages displayed, depending on whether the name is known, or commonly used in that place etc. Vclaw 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this possible? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, its possible, though possibly a bit complicated to setup. Template:Infobox Conditionals has an example of how to do this. Vclaw 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

'BTW - not particularly relevant here - but can someone do one of these maps for Evanton? Pretty please. It's using Dingwall ATM. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Conditionals very interesting: thanks for highlighting that. My only worry is that such a system could lead to all kinds of protracted arguments on hundreds of different pages about what to include and what not. As I see it English, Gaelic and Scots are all three our national languages, and they have validity throughout the whole country.--Mais oui! 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


To have a gaelic place name in the infobox in a town of tens of thousands where about 50 or 100 people speak it (and even they will be doing it as a hobby, not using it as a first language) is intentionally misrepresenting its status - WP is here only to represent reality, and the reality is 1.16% of people in scotland speak gaelic. If that changes in the future and gaelic becomes much more mainstream (and I genuinely hope that that occurs) then WP should change to reflect that, but at the moment that isn't the case. Undue prominence of gaelic is inherently POV. The historical context of a town is important, but I don't believe important enough for the infobox (else why not have a settlements founding times field - ancient, bronze, iron, roman, modern? - those are equally as important historical facts as the gaelic name). SFC9394 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"... why not have a settlement's founding times field - ancient, bronze, iron, roman, modern?" - that's actually not a bad idea! --Mais oui! 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it is; dating impossible; too demanding on the editor too. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

m:Polls are evil. Let's discuss but avoid a vote till we've clarified the issues. Otherwise everyone gets painted into a corner and you'll end up with no consensus at all. I notce already Astrotrain has (quite legitimately) offered a yes, but opinion. That gets lost in polls. As to the issue, including Gaelic in Scottish articles is generally a good idea. However, infoboxes are for prominent facts about an area. They don't allow for nuanced information - or compromise wording. The importance of a Gaelic name to a Scottish location will vary, depending on 1)Was it historically a Gaelic area? 2) Is the Gaelic prominentyl used today? 3) Does the area, or has it over the years, had a Gaelic-speaking community? 4) Is the English name derived from a Gaelic original? In some/many cases, a Gaelic name will be a very important fact and should be prominently included int he infobox, in other cases it will merit inclusion somewhere in the article, but not as prominently as one of the 12 main facts in a infobox. So, whilst a meta discussion to agree principles and emphasis is good - a meta poll which will have an either 'all in', or 'all out' answer, is a bad idea. Let's be pragmatic and not doctrinaire. --Doc ask? 16:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because I don't have a 'way', and I don't praise polls before discussion regardless of the outcome. I will ask you again to assume good faith and stop attributing motives to people. --Doc ask? 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey again, how are you? Yeah, I'm sorry for not having that much faith. It's just that, you're making an issue out of something a neutral wouldn't care about; and I just know you're gonna have the same conclusion no matter what the arguments or votes are. So, you'll have to forgive me Mr Doc, I'm an old cynic. But, everyone here knows that, so we needn't get our pants in too much of a twist over it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
WTF? What conclusions are you propheticaly assuming I'll reach? I've stated my views clearly above and they are that we need to be pragmatic and there is no meta conclusion to be arrived at. I'm interested in the content of an individual article, I have no desire to attempt to enforce my preferences across every geographical article in Scotland. I've only expressed my opinions on one article, to which I have contributed, and intend to contrbute more. I've never claimed to be 'neutral' (who is) but I try to stick to facts rather than pushing political agendas. --Doc ask? 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey again Mr Glasgow. You're talking about the opinions expressed in Talk:Rutherglen, yes? No, you've definitely been a model of objectivity. It's such a shame scoundrels like me with their "political agendas" me have to take up your valuable wiki time limiting the scope of your objectivity. It's just that, I don't think many people will see what exact "political agenda" lies in listing the Gaelic and Scots names in these infoboxes. I don't understand why this is information you so passionately want to hide. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not hide; and by constantly painting that picture you are misrepresenting the views of others. The information should be in the correct place in the correct context - it is where that place and what that context is that should be being debated, not trying to misrepresent others views for your own gain. SFC9394 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk about misrepresentation! What, d'you think I'm on commission from some secret Gaelic society or something? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What about it? You used the word hide - an emotive word which appears nowhere else in the infobox proposal, nowhere else on this page, and nowhere on the Rutherglen talk page. Nobody has used the word hide - yet that is what you accused Doc of wanting. Pretty poor show. SFC9394 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Well, sorry I ain't entertaining you enough. As for the hide stuff, that seems to be the desired consequence. I'll get my fairy servant to deliver you a $1 million on her flying pig if you can find me saying that anyone said "hide". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Please tone it down. You accused me of having information I 'passionately want to hide' (see just above). You have repeatedly accused me of wanting to remove information from the Rutherglen article, when I have repeatedly said that the Gaelic should be included. Can we debate the real issues, and not conspiracy theories and strawmen. --Doc ask? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it was SFC throwing the conspiracy theories. At any rate, I still haven't heard why you want to hide it. The infobox, being an infobox, is supposed to give information, and the Gaelic names are information, and important information. Bottom line. Now if you want to continue offering pretences for getting rid of them, I'm just too cynical to take them seriously. At some point, you should stop being surprised and indignant, and just accept that I'm a cynical git. ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Entertained? I am here to help build a good quality and accurate encyclopedia, nothing more than that - if I want to be entertained then I will switch on the TV. Are you going to debate the proposed issues or just misrepresent others views? SFC9394 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what there is to debate. Everything I've already said here and on talk:Rutherglen still applies. What, do you want me to paste it again for you? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So let's be pragmatic: one template, without the names in it. The name is, after all, the article title, and all other names which editors think should be included (Gaelic, English, Scots, Norn, Latin) would appear in the first sentence. Duplicating the names in the infobox template is redundant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Latin. Many of the Latin names are based on the English, but if the place is big enough, or has a significant Latin name, e.g. Sweetheart Abbey, I suppose it should be included. With Falkirk it is interesting to compare the different versions I suppose. --MacRusgail 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Angus McLellan above. This is the English wikipedia, and so English names are given precedence. Names in other Scottish languages can be added to the text as appropriate to the individual places. ::Supergolden:: 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Angus. A uniform template without alternative place names in the box, not a multitude of infoboxes for different areas. Any alternative names should go in the opening sentence in the lead. No need to overcomplicate things, and these infoboxes are already very large and intrusive on small to medium sized articles. KISS (That's not an offer to anyone BTW ;-) --Cactus.man ✍ 15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point Cactus, I have found myself adding a couple of infoboxes where the article itself is not even reaching beyond the map - obviously that should be a good encouragement to add more content, but on some smallish towns with no great historical or current claims there isn't a lot you can directly add without it looking like a lot of padding and filler. On the size of the infoboxes, there are situations existing (the West Lothian ones that I have been adding to for example) where there is a great deal of redundancy occurring, with Council area, Lieutenancy area and Former county all pointing to the same page - again a bit of field suppression might be enacted here to thin out duplication. I don't know if that might create problems on non-uniformity between infoboxes, which could obviously be a bit of a negative (browsing user asks, "does xyz have a former county then or not?". SFC9394 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Armadale is a fine example. Field suppression definitely needs to be investigated to restrict the scope of info in the box, related to redundancy and article size. I would say that the Armadale infobox for the article as it stands only needs the map, Statistics and Ordnance Survey sections. Some of the other info is redundant because it's in the article, the rest is just bloat on such a small article. How about a show / hide feature similar to the TOC, or is that just a Mediawiki software feature? Do we need a template guru? --Cactus.man ✍ 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm missing something obvious, but why not just have a template with optional fields? For example, in Template:Cite journal, the coauthors field only affects the output if it's filled in. Why not have a template with optional parameters for Scots name, Police force, etc., which could be used when appropriate and ignored when not? I agree than in English Wikipedia that English should take precedence. --Craig Stuntz 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we're both making the same point, but with different terminology. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
If you are then I inferred slight differences. I presumed that Cactus was suggesting a show/hide ability so the info would still be there but could just be 'folded up' so the layout would be from the top: map | Stats | OS grid ref | other info header (with show button). Whereas Craig sounds like he is suggesting just not entering things for articles that are quite short. It does make sense for the police force not to be shown in Armadale by default, but it would be a shame if it was just dropped altogether (so if an un-informed user dropped by the article he could at least find that out by using a show button, but if it was just not even there then that would leave the user a bit confused). Whether the 'folding up' can be used depends on whether anyone knows of implementation, it is not something I have seen, but sounds like a very handy option to compact articles when required. SFC9394 12:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that where I used "field suppression", the intention was really the same as "optional fields" that do not appear if left empty. At the moment for example, using Armadale again, both Gaelic: and Scots: are empty but the fields still appear. That's plain daft. The show / hide idea was really just an afterthought based on the TOC feature. I have no idea whether or not this can be implemented in a template. Anybody? --Cactus.man ✍ 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Since we are now having splinter infobox templates created by people who don't want the two extra placename fields, can we attempt to move this to consensus before we lose continuity on the situation? Field suppression (as you describe it above) seems like the best thing to implement right now (the show/hide is a good one to look into in the long term, but not necessarily needed immediately). That would at least avoid having new infobox templates created. The question then arises as to when the fields should be used. In places where gaelic is spoken in any significant numbers it makes sense, elsewhere is makes no sense (in the infobox - I am always happy with it in the article body) - it should be clearly defined where it should be used, otherwise edit wars will just ensue. SFC9394 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

but what is the point in debate when you have already forced the galiec infobox on all of us? User:retro_junkies (Talk) 16:12, 28 March 2006 (left in vote section, moved to discussion)

  • The point should be to provide the Gaelic form of the name somewhere (not necessarily this template box) if (1) the name has its origin in Gaelic, as many placenames do from the Borders to Caithness, or (2) the name went through a period of Gaelicisation, i.e., was linguistically transformed by being reanalyzed by a local, Gaelic-speaking population (and again, these were to be found throughout Scotland over the last 1,200 years). It should have nothing to do with the number of Gaelic speakers in the locale in the modern period, or with the contemporary perceptions of what the "national language" is supposed to be, as this is not at all indicative of Scotland's past. Of course, it would be misleading to provide Gaelic translations of placenames if there is no known "tradition" of the placename being used in Gaelic. Such Gaelic information needs to remain in the English version of the WikiPedia, and not ghettoised in the Gaelic version, as though it were an alien outcast. It's pathetic to see so many Anglophones balk at being offered a linguistic insight into the Gaelic history of their own locales. Gaelicmichael 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My vote:

  • We should have only one standard format InfoBox;
  • Gaelic and alternative names should appear in the text of the lead section, not in the InfoBox;
  • All other parameters should be optional - if they are not filled in, then the field should not appear on the page.

Nice and simple. Maybe it's time for an evil poll? --Cactus.man ✍ 13:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me though that User:retro_junkies has a point, very few people if any speak or understand Gaelic in these areas, so it seems quite misleading to have the Gaelic names on there town names, giving the impression that this is considered the norm.

Byerswerks 03 April 16:34 (UTC)

Consensus reached

I think that it is fairly clear that we have reached consensus on retaining a single Infobox for places in Scotland (plus a near identical one with a map). As Cactus man suggests, perhaps we should pretty much repeat this exercise as regards "dynamic" boxes which can hide things etc. Could I ask Cactus man, or anybody else interested, to start a new Request for consensus process, similar to above, with the options laid out for us to mull over. I would do it myself, but time short next couple days. Ta. --Mais oui! 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll draft something up tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mais oui! that there is probably concensus to use only the two "standard" infoboxes, {{Infobox Scotland place}} and {{Infobox Scotland place with map}}, but not for whether the Gaelic and Scots names should be in the box, or confined to the text in the lead section. I think this issue needs to be resolved before we get into questions of which other parameters could be optional and complicated collapsible formatting. Therefore a poll below. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll on Gaelic and Scots names in the 2 standard Infoboxes

These options are mutually exclusive. Therefore, please only offer *Support for one or the other. i.e. do not *Support one and *Oppose the other. Please add your reasoning, then sign as normal. Thanks.

Option 1:

The Gaelic and Scots names should be excluded from the Infoboxes entirely and included in the lead section text on the article page if necessary.

It seems to me that very few people if any speak or understand Gaelic in these areas, so it seems quite misleading to have the Gaelic names on there town names, giving the impression that this is considered the norm.

Option 2:

The Gaelic and Scots names should be included in the Infoboxes as optional parameters which would only be displayed on the article page if the details are added to the wiki markup.

Not really - you will have an edit war kicking off on every page where someone takes exception to it (see Selkirk history for an example of this at the moment) SFC9394 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
True, but is that not also the case with all the options? The material will be reverted in and out be it in suppressible field, non-suppressible field or the article body if there are so-minded editors! If this material is to go in the infobox, as I think it should when we have it, the difference between 2 and 3 is whether we show the titles at all times, and I just think it looks neater to omit the title when there's no corresponding info. Aquilina 09:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Define "required." An Siarach
Therein lies the problem! I suppose the "requirement" will be decided (as now) on a case-by-case basis between the editors of each article. I am not an expert on this issue and am not going to display an opinion until I am better educated. This here is more an argument of aesthetics: in general I just think infoboxes look better when the titles of empty fields are omitted.
Some separate debate may, perhaps, be in order to decide a verifiable level of notability and use which the Gaelic or Scots name should have for a corresponding level of prominence in the article; that is, if the aim is to establish some convention and groundrules to stop the current edit wars. But again, I leave this thankless task to those better qualified! Aquilina 14:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Option 3:

The Gaelic and Scots names should be included in the Infoboxes as standard parameters which would always be displayed on the article page, even if the details are lacking for specific articles.

  • Support although a liberal at heart, I do feel that a strong dose of centralised authoritarianism is required on this issue. If we give people an option then we are going to end up with turf-wars similar to Selkirk. That said, I could live with Option 2, or I suppose Option 1. I find it a bit depressing how little respect we seem to have for our indigenous languages: no wonder they are in trouble. --Mais oui! 15:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Changed mind, support Option 2. (Fuzzy liberal values regaining dominance.) --Mais oui! 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The answer to encouraging indigenous languages (and such advocacy can never be a goal of a neutral encyclopedia anyway), is not 'centralised authoritarianism' which forces people to use them. Socotland, thankfully, is not Quebec, and the English wikipedia should never be. --Doc ask? 15:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that Wikipedia should be "advocating" any languages. Let he who is without POV cast the first stone regarding "neutrality". --Mais oui! 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Who on Earth is forcing anyone to 'use' anything? We are discussing how best provide, or whether to provide at all,specific information. Some of the fairly emotive language used by those against the display of any names but those based in English, regardless of pertinence, is curious to say the least. An Siarach
Have to agree with Doc. There's been a pushing of Gaelic names in articles on areas with no Gaelic tradition, though arguably these areas had a relatively brief period of Gaelic rule around the 11th century. If Gaelic as an "official" language has to appear in articles I'd prefer to see it in the infobox rather than at the start or the lead section, but hope that isn't going to be the case. ...dave souza, talk 16:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If the parameters are not optional, and are omitted, then the Infobox is a compete and utter mess and totally unprofessional in its presentation. Having the parameters as optional does not remove them from the template, they can be added in at any time. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Option 1 seems a strange one to me. I would have thought the info box would be the best place to provide the names if at all rather than lumping them into the opening paragraph. Vote Retracted :An Siarach
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_5&oldid=1181020845"